[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

Excirial wrote:
> *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected
> images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of
> all images?*
> 
> See the FAQ section on
> Talk:Muhammad<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad>,
> which contains an easy method to hide the images trough CSS, which is a
> permanent setting that works for all browsers. Since we are discussing that
> exact page, i thought you would have seen it on the talk page as it is quite
> prominent. Apologies for not mentioning it earlier.
> 

That only works for people with accounts that have already been
offended, that speak English, that have managed to find the FAQ, and
that are computer literate. IOW out of the billion or so target audience
for offense, about zero.



> *So why isn't goatse.cx embedded on the shock site page. Gerrard says that
> its because there might be copyright issues but that hasn't been a problem
> in cases of the Mohammed images that the ace group are complaining about:*
> 
> I already linked the relevant discussion above, and i have equally commented
> on it. To quote myself: "See this
> discussion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png>,
> though it may be easier to read the summary that is available on the article
> talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goatse.cx>. In essence the
> image was removed under WP:NFCC, with a sidenote that we could not reliably
> determine who the person being displayed on the photo was, which caused
> privacy concerns (As in displaying pornographic content of someone who
> hasn't given clear endorsement for doing so)". In other words, the image
> more or less suffers from a BLP issue - and you might also note that it
> wasn't removed because it was deemed offensive.


What a complete load of twaddle. NFCC has not stopped the use of Piss
Christ, nor has it stopped the use of any of the controversial Mohammed
images. In all those cases a textural description of the image would
suffice. The person in the goatse image is unidentifiable, and the image
has been on the web for 10 years. Where are the privacy concerns? So I'm
still calling bullshit, as it looks that thin justification was simply
found to remove that image.


> *So I think I'm going to call you on being totally hypocritical on the issue
> of "the knowledge needs of the larger group outweigh the issues of the
> smaller group", because it is quite simply untrue.*
> If you believe that such statements will strengthen the argument you make,
> please do go ahead think of me like that. Personally i would argue that such
> comments aren't helpful at all because they only serve to create enmity
> between other parties, and because they scream "AGF"

And how do we assume good faith when images known to cause offense are
being defended, especially when its not as if they can't be found on any
one of a 1000 websites. Reposting them serves no value other than give
the poster and its defenders a warm fuzzy "we're don't censored"
feeling. Except that you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29#File:Goatse.fr_homepage.png

> Besides this you
> might actually want to read the deletion discussion on the Goatse.sx images,
> so you can see the reason of the verdict for yourself - and you might
> actually see a reason why i am not exactly being hypocritical.


The goatse images was removed for stated reasons that could equally be
applied to almost any of the controversial images. That those reasons
aren't applied to the other images smacks of hypocrisy.


> Regardless of whether or not this convinces you, i would ask that you keep
> it friendly. Comments such as the one you just made, along with the previous
> one further up (*Unless there is evidence to the contrary I'm inclined to
> believe that *you* have taken a knee jerk islamaphobic stance climbed up a
> flag p[ole and are currently waving your knickers in the air. I'm interested
> to see just how you are going to get yourself back down with a modicum of
> dignity.*) simply aren't productive. Besides, if we start labeling each
> other it will simply result in less sensible discussion, and more "Digging
> one's heels in the soil".
> 

And the defenders of these images aren't doing just that? Scrap the
muslim connection just explain to this Atheist why it is imperative to
display the "Piss Christ" image, when "photograph of plastic christ on
cross in jar of urine" describes exactly why the work was found
offensive. Just explain why the actual image is necessary and whilst you
are about it explain why it is so much larger than the normal use of an
image to illustrate an article?